Smoking Gun! Flight 93 Rare News Footage From The Crash Site

This is it folks. After viewing the video you will undoubtedly know two things:

1. There was no Flight 93 Plane at the crash site.
2. The official story of Flight 93 from the very beginning was/is a lie.

9/11 Flight 93 Rare News Footage


The only things you'll find on the ground are little pieces of dirt and ash scattered over eight miles away. A 15-20 feet hole in the ground and not a single piece of plane wreckage. Well, there is..but it doesn't match a Flight 93 looking at these photos. I don't know what to make of it that though. I'm a little confused how that one and only piece of wreckage manifested itself (unless a missle was constructed this way)

and eye witnesses report seeing some kind of military plane at the time of the supposed "crash":

"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look."

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around."

At 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by supersonic flight - was picked up by an earthquake monitoring station in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles from Shanksville.

"As soon as we looked up, we saw a mid-sized jet flying low and fast," Decker told the Record. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Describing the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings, Decker said, "If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt. It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down."

An analysis on the supposed cellphone calls from the "hijacked" Flight 93:

The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93


Where's the bodies? Luggage? Clothes? Engines?

The only logical explaination is that some type of missle was used and exploded which caused the hole and little debris. The fact that there was a military plane near the area, I believe this plane had sent a missle to the site to simulate that a crash did occur. A litte out there, but that's what I believe. Also the black box was not part of "Flight 93".



There's something else I found..

The real Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on 9/11/01, as reported by WCPO-TV (9news Staff)

"A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight."



I found that piece of information amazing and disturbing!

There's probably something else missing from this whole investigation, but I firmly believe that Flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

And now there's the movie United 93. Can anyone say propaganda?

It's a disgrace. Americans should be outraged!

The other plane sounds like an A-10 Warthog. These are painted in the old European Camoflauge scheme, but they're a light grey now. I've never heard of any kind of private jet with a twin vertical fin and rear mounted engines. Rear mounted engines yes, but not a twin vertical fin of any sort.


As for Flight 93, as was said by many people, myself included, in a really long thread about this, when you have a plane go straight in at high speed (like flight 93) you get a very deep crater, and very few pieces. The plane, engines and everything else compress into very small pieces. I've heard of wrecks like this where 6-8 foot engines were found 15 feet down, compressed to 2-3 feet. The main wreckage of Flight 93 was something like 20-25 feet down. You're not going to have big pieces of wreckage like you do in a shallow angle crash, which is what you almost always see on the news.

As an example look at the Valuejet crash in Florida. It did a nosedive into swampy soft ground and they found very little wreckage and no big pieces. And that was a much smaller plane, much lower speed at impact, and much softer ground.

The bit about it being the wrong plane because the stripes don't match is pretty funny. United hasn't used that paintjob he pointed to in YEARS! What, does he think they repaint some planes, and leave others painted how they are? They repainted their entire fleet since then, and are in the process of repainting it again. I've seen pics on Airliners.net of the Flight 93 757 painted in the dark paintjob.

[edit on 5/2/2006 by Zaphod58]

"These types of accidents always leave a large debris field.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model and specific registration number of the aircraft – and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for the safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible."

"UAL 93. Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have been literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at the site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.”

- Glen Stanish Professional Pilot - ATP (22 years of aviation experience with 15 years of scheduled US airline experience)

Source: Where is the wreckage of UAL 93?



Zaphod58, what experience do you have? Are you gonna tell me I should take your word over a professional pilot?

Plane crashes are messy, very messy.

There is no wreckage of the plane and yet they reovered "The Black Box." Riiiiiiiight.


NO PLANE.

"There was no plane,” said Mayor Ernie Stull of Shanksville. “My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there. They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here, and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.”

“There was no plane?” AFP asked.

“No, nothing. Only this hole.”

The Hole




It wasn't a deep crater. Where are you getting this information? You were obviously misinformed or intentionally trying to cover up the facts.

Another eyewitness, Nena Lensbour, who had prepared lunch for the workers at the scrap yard overlooking the crash site, was also one of the first people to view the smoking crater. She told AFP that the hole was five to six feet deep and smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard. She described hearing an explosion, like an atomic bomb, not a crash.

Many other eyewitness testimonies widely conflict with the official account of UAL 93.





You're wrong.


Pieces of the ValuJet accumulate in a hangar

Seventy percent of the remains of ValuJet Flight 592 have been gathered, including crucial fragments from the DC-9's main circuit breaker panel, the National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday.

Some of the larger pieces were found after the discovery earlier this week of a new depression within the main crater formed by the plane's impact. ValuJet Flight 592 crashed in the Florida Everglades nearly a month ago, killing all 110 people on board.

Key pieces of ValuJet puzzle emerge

And what's YOUR experience other than reading what a PILOT said? Have you ever been to a crash scene? Have you ever seen a plane crash? Have you ever talked to investigators?

There is at least one person on here that investigated crashes for the military and agrees with what I said, and SAW what I said happen to a plane.

When a plane crashes at a shallow angle YOU HAVE LOTS LEFT.

What do you think happens when a plane hits nose first, straight down at over 500 mph? It just sticks into the ground? What do you think happens to the 200,000 pounds of weight on a plane?

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Tasketo]

It's worth pointing out that the pieces of plane shown in the photographs from your second link were dug out of the ground, right? They weren't gathered from around the area, but were down like 20 feet in the ground. So, I guess what I'm saying is, the pictures of the debris excavated doesn't cause a conflict with the footage of that day stating there wasn't anything but little bit stuff all over the ground.

The second link shows quite large bits of a plane, they dont look like they were dug out of the ground at all, let alone compressed from the impact. Odd.

The eyewitness description is of an A-10, alright. That aircraft is subsonic, so it would not have produced a sonic boom. It does, however, carry laser guided bombs and Maverick missiles, and could easily have made the crater in question with one of its munitions, if the crater was, in fact, not made by the crash of Flt. 93.

Good thread, eudaimonia. The news of Flt 93 landing in Cleveland needs looking into, imo.

Excellent find.

What astounds me most about this aspect of 9/11 is the Media chose to ignore alot of eye witness testimony of the people who live in the area of shanksville. How they saw fighter jets shoot down the plane and what not.

So heres the problem. As someone mentioned earlier the windspan mark in the ground was much smaller then the wingspan of an actual 757.

Which begs the question. What was actually shot down over shanksville? It's not only my borrowed opinion but I've heard several mentions from different people over the last few years that A-3 Skywarriors were used in 9/11.

Although the Naudet film doesn't show the first plane very clearly you can still compare the size of the first plane to the size of the second plane and the first plane is much smaller then the second inbound 757.

We really need to start coming together on this. We only saw one 757 on video of the 9/11 event. That leaves 3 aircraft which can't be positively Id'd as 757's. And the lack of wreckage, lack of luggage (which in some cases is bomb proof) and lack of airline seats and what have you really makes me ponder.

And it astounds me even further that there can be such a lack of wreckage yet the FBI found some passports and plastic ID cards in perfect condition.

However I've seen many pictures from the wreckage of the towers which still shows bit chunks of the airframe from the second plane that can positively be Id'd.

So how can that be? The second plane still had big chunks of it's airframe recognizable even after slamming into the sturdy built WTC and yet the plane that crashed/shotdown over Shanksville has almost nothing left? The Pentagon plane too.

I can't find the link anymore but there was a picture I posted from a site where it showed a chunk of windscreen from the Pentagon. Might not seem like much however this piece can't be ignored because 757's don't have windscreens anything remotely like that.

We only saw one 757 out of the 4 on that day. We're kidding ourselves if we think that 9/11 happened as cnn and foxnews claim. Even all the cellphone calls. Cellphones didn't work in planes back then. The airline companies are just coming out with the technology and even now it's not fully completed. The CIA can do literally anything with voice manipulation nowadays. When you manipulate with 0's and 1's you can make a phone call of Bush calling for his military commanders to launch nuclear weapons if you wanted to. Although with the way things are going with Iran they won't have to manipulate.

Funny enough even the first CNN reporter on the Pentagon clearly said that whatever hit the pentagon wasn't a 757 because of the lack of wreckage. If it was indeed a 757 then there still would have been clearly identifiable pieces especially after the big chunk of the 757 from WTC 2 was still intact and identifiable.

Double that with the FBI's failure to release all the video tape evidence that would prove one way or another and clearly the government or a part of the government is hiding many key things about 9/11.

portland.indymedia.org...

www.rense.com...

www.freedomisforeverybody.org...

Some of you people out there really need to start questioning your government. I wouldn't believe everything they say so blindly. I'm glad to see though that the people who still believe blindly the 9/11 "official' story are quickly becoming the minority. Humans aren't as supposed as the Bush administration would like to believe.

You can't identify them all as 757s because only two were. The other two were 767s, which are bigger and have a wider fuselage.

As far as the big chunks of debris, again, you're comparing COMPLETELY different types of crashes, with totally different forces involved, and saying "Well how come this happened to this one but not this one?" Crashes don't work that way.

Even if Flight 93 was shot down, or even if it just crashed, you're not going to see the wing outline in the ground. The wings almost always tend to shatter into very small pieces and not leave marks at impact.

uh, newsflash we did see wing outlines in the ground from shanksville. Someone post that above ground photo please...

How do crashes not work that way? they are both crashing into a surface and all that energy comes to a screeching halt. even though ground is soft at that speed it would still be like crashing into a building.

Kind of like falling into the water from a speeding boat. the fall into water is going to feel like hitting concrete.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

Sure, you see some impact mark of the wing, but you're not going to see the cartoon impact of the plane that people expect, and everything from about the end of the wing spar out isn't going to leave a mark.

They don't work the same because you're looking at a steel building in one, which will leave big pieces, and solid ground in the other, which in case you haven't noticed tends to be a lot harder.

Crashes where there is a lot of big wreckage left, they hit on their belly which spreads the force out a lot more. This type of crash (Flight 93) the force is all applied at one point which compresses the fuselage into a very small area, leaving very little pieces of wreckage. You get a few larger pieces in the initial explosion, but you aren't going to see large pieces like you would in a low speed/shallow angle crash.

Is that an official picture from the governement stating this as debris from the United flight 93?? If yes I really I have to wonder what they think this should be.

You know I have no idea, I found it via the second link in the original post. I thought it a tad strange too. Can anyone confirm that this is supposed to be flight 93?

Well now that i found out about Flight 93's registry number being kept active until 2005 i am researching more in that area now.

UAL 93. Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have been literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at the site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.”

If you run that registry number in FAA's records it comes back that it was cancelled on 09/28/2005. Seems a little long for them to have that number active.

Not really, I showed before that if you compare various crashes from an air disaster database with the FAA records you often have aircraft continuing for long periods of time as 'active', like all massive databases it's pretty useless.
The problem is that people are quick to make such assumptions and statements without actually checking to see if the same anomolies can be observed in relation to 'ordinary' incidents. It's a fine example of the lack of research in putting together 9/11 conspiracy evidence, one of the first things you are taught at school when conducting experiments is to have a 'control' yet this does not seem to happen. The majority of the time if someone does bother to do this they'll notice that the data they think of as evidence is too inaccurate to be conclusive.

EDIT:

Here's the first couple I came across, I'm not going to list loads because it'll be the third time now!





Note the length of time until cancellation, and note it was also just cancelled not listed as destroyed (I've heard that used as an argument as well).

This is a real beauty this one:

Now looking at the picture I'm pretty sure there is no dispute the plane is totalled:





FAA Records:



Hold the phone! This one is still assigned now and was destroyed in 2002!

I guess that makes the records pretty inaccurate................

With regards to the pictures of debris, they are genuine - there are a few more here though please beware that the link does CONTAIN GRAPHIC IMAGES AND AUDIO.

www.rcfp.org...

I also found the link questioning the authenticity of the debris due to the paintjob vaguely amusing, I think it was already pointed out but it took a few seconds to find a photo of the aircraft, registration N591UA and it indeed had the correct colour scheme at the time. Yet another example of the poor research we all get to enjoy in this field, it would be funny if the consequences weren't so dire...

Link to image of N591UA

If nothing else it should urge people to conduct the relatively simple and easy research to confirm these things for themselves, as it most certainly seems even the 'truth seekers' are either delibrately lying or incompetent... Perhaps they should work for the Government?

[edit on 7-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Terrific find Eudamonia!

I have not heard this story before and I've spent the entire morning researching that angle. If you use Dogpile search engine, and enter "Flight 93 + Cleveland", you will get all kinds of websites saying the same thing, that #93 landed at Cleveland. You will also find ALOT of other information about 9/11 debunked scientifically and analyzed.
This does seem to be truly the smoking gun.
As the person above said, there would be at least some parts of the plane left, as there are some parts that are indestructible.
I've also read that Todd Beamer, hero of #93, is still alive and living somewhere, maybe California I think. Also one of the links that I googled said that Todd's father won a no-bid contract to repair the damaged Pentagon. Doesn't that seem like way too much of a coincidence? Also only 11 people were reported on the social security death index and only 6% of the people on #93 ever filed settlement claims, the least of which was 1/4 million dollars and the average was 1.8 million dollars. That doesn't add up does it?

Check out this site, it also has lots of good links at the bottom of it.

www.freedomisforeverybody.org...

It was not Flight 93 that landed in Cleveland, it was Delta Flight 1989. The 2 aircraft were flying with no transponders and crossed paths so they got confused as to witch aircraft was which. Flight 1989 reported a bomb threat but nothing was found.

Zaphod: What do you say to the debris being spread out across a multiple-mile area? I can certainly see the aircraft breaking up into miniscule pieces in a nose-dive - the lack of large debris isn't the problem for me. It's the fact that it's spread out over such a large area. I'm no expert in such things, but I would think that the engines and other solid objects would have sunk into the ground as well at that speed, not bounced for a few miles. And an engine was found several miles away, if I recall correctly.

Also there were reports of flight magazines falling from the sky in nearby areas. For that to happen, it would have to have broken apart in midair, I'd think.

Here's the quote about that.

Logan, there are several reasons it could have happened. They could have overstressed the airframe, or blown an engine by having it at high speed for too long, or they could have been hit by something from a fighter. I'm not gonna speculate on what caused the debris to be found that far away. But like Agentsmith said, a little more research on the things brought up such as the reg numbers, and things like that would be nice.